I commented on another blog entry which defended Schrodinger’s rapist. I thought my comments were fairly reasonable. The blog owner (of course) has now put me into the spam queue. Here’s the original URL (I won’t link to it)

None of those articles support the idea of “rape culture”. None of them show that our culture is positive towards the idea of raping women. None of them show that a facile “don’t rape” comment will convince violent criminals to not rape. Your attempt to change the subject doesn’t change my arguments against the “Schrodinger’s Rapist” entry.

Your comment of “anecdotal evidence” is likewise false. DSK wasn’t a “friend of a friend” story. It was wide-spread news. It was deeply investigated (both accuser and accused). The truth came out. One false accusation by a serial false accuser was enough to destroy the reputation of a powerful man.

Any theory worth believing in is falsifiable. Evolution can be famously disproved by “fossil rabbits in the precambrian”. It doesn’t take studies. It doesn’t take reams of data. One rabbit is enough.

In this case, one example showed that the alleged leaders of the “patriarchy” can be removed from power by a false accusation. There is no rational way for anyone to believe in the patriarchy, or that our culture supports and encourages rape.

Maybe we don’t prosecute some crimes hard enough. That might be true. But that in no way means that we encourage those crimes. Believing that is a logical fallacy.

You can moderate dissenting opinions all you want. All it shows is that you can’t engage in a discussion about your beliefs. If you were secure in your beliefs, then they would withstand all dissent. If your beliefs were true, they could withstand all dissent.

His counter-argument is The giving of generalized advice does not imply that no one already knows or follows that advice. Seriously? If everyone already knows and follows that advice, why give it?

The first four points of the Schrodinger’s rapist post are mostly reasonable. Then the zinger comes in at number five. Since the first ones are reasonable, you’ve fallen into the belief that the author is a reasonable person. So the fifth piece of advice: “Don’t rape” is easier to swallow.

Try this at a party some time. Walk up to a guy, and say “I like you, but please don’t rape my wife.” I’ll give you ten to one odds that he treats you like you’re insane.

“I wanna get down on my knees and start pleasing Peezus, I wanna feel his approval all over my face.”

I’ve engaged in discussions on various A+ forums, using a number of different accounts. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that this one was quickly banned. It shouldn’t also surprise anyone that the typical counter-argument was “You’ve got to read more.”

No, I don’t need to read more. I’m here to talk to you, the A+ supporter. If you’re not capable of rationally discussing your position, then it’s not worth holding.

If your position is so weak that you ban people for dissenting and asking questions, your position is false.

Rational arguments need not apply. Facts get tossed out. What’s important is creating a “safe zone” for people to discuss…. something. Anyone who asks “what are we discussing?” gets banned.

The entire A+ social network is about pleasing people. Facts and evidence aren’t useful here. Social cohesion is. Follow the mob. Ignore the little boy who says “the emperor has no clothes”